While everyone is fighting over towers in the West End and in Marpole, I discovered almost by accident last week that there’s a significant new development planned for Main and Kingsway when I dropped in to the urban design panel.
Unbeknownst to I think many people, the much-praised firm of Acton Ostry has been designing a huge development for the entire block that includes the former strip of stores on Broadway that burned down on Christmas Day last year and the Cantu/Living Space/Midland Appliances cluster in the former Jantzen building on Kingsway.
That will all come down (surprised me to hear the Jantzen building has no heritage protection but apparently not) for a 26-storey tower with townhouses and retail wrapped around the base, along with 10,000 square feet of artists’ spaces that will run along the 10th Avenue (bike lane) side. The Watson Street/back alley will be the parking entrance.
In total: 206 market units and 62 rental units under the city’s sometimes-controversial program to encourage rental housing by giving developers density. It looks as though there will be a large courtyard in the middle. I’d like to show designs but there aren’t any on the city’s list of development projects or on Acton Ostry’s. All that’s available publicly is this.
You might think the community would be up in arms over this. STIR projects have been generating backlash in the West End. And this is blocks away from the site of the social-housing tower that prompted huge neighbourhood resistance — enough that council lopped off three floors.
But not a word. It sounds as though it’s partly because city planners have been working with the Mount Pleasant community on this. Mount Pleasant did get, three years ago, the much-coveted chance for a re-visioning of the whole neighbourhood — the kind of thing that the West End and Marpole have been asking for as they resist towers there.
The planners and architects noted, for instance, that they took four storeys off the tower already in order to respond to community reaction and so were reluctant to make the tower any higher. (They made that comment when various people on the design panel suggested the tower height should be raised to make it feel more vertical, less blocky, and to remove some bulk from the lower levels.)
That may bring positive changes — perhaps even to Kingsgate Mall, the strange little replica of a mall in Trail or Cranbrook that across the street from the project in this prime location. As architect Scott Romses said, “it’s going to be a seed for this neighbourhood, a catalyst for everything around it.”
(Thanks to J3 to pointing me to some renderings of the buildings. Here’s one link.
I have to say the project startled me. Although it looks as though it’s been designed imaginatively, it’s very different from everything else around there. There’s a lot of development at Main and Broadway these days, but it’s mainly matched the shape, height and even the dark-red brick of the famous Lee Building at the intersection. This is a big tower that will rise over everything around.
83 responses so far ↓
1 AnnetteF // Oct 25, 2010 at 1:18 pm
I saw the application for this on the city’s website a few months ago and had exactly the same reaction. (They’re going to build what?)
I haven’t seen any pictures of what the development will look like, but my first thought was that it really seems out of place in that neighbourhood.
2 Joe Just Joe // Oct 25, 2010 at 1:39 pm
The plans are listed up at SSP:Vancouver if you want to see them again.
The Marpole working group was a lot more supportive of additional density then most of the other visioning processes. I’m sure they will be rewarding with additional retail and community ammenties to show for it. Kingsgate Mall will certainly be interesting to watch as the VSB could certainly use the money.
3 Tiktaalik // Oct 25, 2010 at 2:01 pm
I hadn’t heard of it until now so it’s likely that almost no one in Mt. Pleasant has heard of it. I did just notice a development sign on the side of LivingSpace a few days ago, but hadn’t had the time to have a look at what it was.
I went to a handful of the Mt Pleasant community plan meetings and they didn’t mention anything about this so I suppose this development came after that? Those speculative meetings did float the idea of building new buildings of significant height and scale on top of the Kingsgate mall however, and people had a favourable opinion of the idea. This development I suppose isn’t that far off.
I recall the idea being floated of making Watson street more of an interesting and relevant street, but I guess they’ve decided to put the parking entrance there then maybe they’ve decided to drop that in favour of adding more to 10th.
Has the Mount Pleasant community plan gone to council for approval yet?
4 Wayne // Oct 25, 2010 at 2:10 pm
After 60 years of living here one of the views that still stir me is the mountain view from above Broadway down Main, Cambie and even Fraser. I can’t exactly visualize how this tower would impact the views but I expect a little more will be lost in addition to what has already been lost since One Kingsway and adjacent buildings started going up.
It should be a great view for those who can afford a unit on the north side of the new buildings though.
The only realistic way to accommodate increasing populations is to ‘build up’ but I’m not convinced 26 storey towers in low rise neighbourhoods is the best solution.
5 vancouverdrives.com // Oct 25, 2010 at 2:27 pm
It definately sounds like it will have an amazing view on the north side of the building…
Until we put something in front of that one too.
6 Chris // Oct 25, 2010 at 2:52 pm
I live two blocks away, and this is the first I’ve heard of the project. I don’t recall seeing any signage at the site when I walked by yesterday.
I did find links to project plans posted 3 weeks ago on skyscraperpage.com http://forum.skyscraperpage.com/showthread.php?t=185591
My initial reactions.
- it will be a big building, but there already a lot of 10-15 story condos in the neighbourhood, so it won’t be too out of place. If the units are affordable, it will be a positive for the area.
- a restaurant and patio facing 10th would be really nice.
- looks like the courtyard will have community gardens. nice touch
- I can’t tell if the courtyard will be accessible to the public, or for residents only. I hope it will be a public amenity.
- the courtyard plan calls for decorative “trolley wires” spanning overhead. First time I’ve heard of trolley wires as a positive visual piece, but it could work if they’re covered in vines.
- the building will have 319 parking spaces, 10% more then the minimum required (290). I can’t think of a site outside of downtown (other then maybe Broadway and Commercial) with better public transit and bike route coverage. Too bad they didn’t try to minimize parking – it would make the units more affordable.
- the talk on skyscraperforum is about the empty parking lot on the adjacent lot that could be the entrance to a skytrain station on the UBC extension. when that happens you really won’t need 319 parking spots.
- on the other hand, they do have room for 362 bikes. It will be interesting to see which is more utilized.
7 Chris // Oct 25, 2010 at 2:59 pm
Here’s the city’s page on the project:
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/rezoning/applications/228-246ebway/index.htm
8 Tiktaalik // Oct 25, 2010 at 3:22 pm
That’s a good amount of bike parking, but depending on the strata bylaws it may not be enough.
I think building designers in general are massively lowbowing the amount of bike parking necessary. It depends on the average youth of the building’s residents of course but I feel like the likelyhood that a unit will need more than one bicycle spot is pretty high.
- Multiple bedroom units will have multiple bikes
- Even one bedroom units a couple that are bike users necessarily require multiple bikes (lets ignore tandems because they’re so rare) whereas a couple could share a car.
- bikes can’t be parked on the street but cars can.
- Often strata bylaws are hilariously strict about restricting the moving of bicycles through buildings, essentially banning the keeping of bicycles in units, and so bicycles must be kept in the bike parking. Often these rules aren’t changed when the strata takes over.
- Many people have more than one bicycle! Whereas most people wouldn’t have additional cars, bicycles are quite cheap and so it’s easy for people to have multiple bicycles for different uses. There are commuter bicycles, recreational sports bicycles (mountain biking on the north shore, track bike racing at the velodrome, triathalon bicycles…), cargo bicycles for shopping, and as well perhaps very expensive or rare bicycles that would be rarely ridden, perhaps just in the summer.
9 Tiktaalik // Oct 25, 2010 at 3:28 pm
If that little parking lot at Main and Broadway is going to remain empty for the next 15 years until they get around to building the Broadway line then the city should license the whole thing out to a half a dozen food carts and make a little food court with tables and chairs like they do in Portland.
10 richards // Oct 25, 2010 at 4:20 pm
Random comment on bike parking #’s, in support of Tiktaalik’s musings. My partner and I share a 1bdrm place and have 4 bikes (2 commuters, 1 hardcore downhill bike, 1 light downhill bike). Bike parking is a huge problem, especially given the high value of the downhill bikes and the poor quality of the common bike room. one of our commuters is a folding bike, so it goes in our unit, the other 3 are really just waiting to be stolen.
11 Chris B // Oct 25, 2010 at 4:24 pm
Looking from afar (Ottawa) but as a former resident of Vancouver/Mount Pleasant, I do find it unfortunate that everything is towers, due to the price of land.
Going up near me in Ottawa is a rental cluster that I think would be very suitable for Mount Pleasant – http://beaverbarracks.ca – this type of project does offer good density, but at a much nicer scale for the neighbourhood.
12 Joe Just Joe // Oct 25, 2010 at 4:38 pm
It’s a lot easier to add bicycle parking spots at a later date then it is car parking. The fact that the developer is chosing to put in more parking then is required shows the market demand. The developer is only including the extra spots because they know w/o them the units would be much harder to sell. At the end of the day the people dictate what’s offered.
13 The Fourth Horseman // Oct 25, 2010 at 4:42 pm
That looks like a good design Chris. A nice mix, lower rise and sees to have a “neighborhood” look about it, if I remember my visit to Ottawa last year.
Gee, I thought that we were going to try to stick to 6-8 stories in the eco-density.
A much more interesting view from the street too.
Instead, here, it looks like we get the same uninspired box. We could be Omaha, Nebraska.
I will reserve jusdgement till we see more detailed elevations drawings and what the common/space areas look like.
At this point: yuck and yawn.
14 Tiktaalik // Oct 25, 2010 at 5:22 pm
So does this building get extra height due to STIR or some other amenity? Is there a place where we can find this sort of thing out or is it too early in the consultation process to know?
I notice that the city page says that they haven’t mailed out consultation notice or planned for any meeting yet.
15 Frances Bula // Oct 25, 2010 at 9:19 pm
@Tiktaalik. I haven’t found anything yet that specifies what the trade-offs are between the developer and the city, the kind of thing that was detailed in the report I wrote about last week for the building at Hornby and Drake. It will likely be spelled out and I presume they are getting some density for the STIR units and that the 10,000 SF of artist space is also part of the community contribution.
16 Jeff // Oct 25, 2010 at 11:17 pm
Is Scott Romses the architect of the development? If so, his comment that this project will be “a catalyst for everything around it” is especially irritating. Though allegedly there is some brick on the building that references the Lee Building, the overall look is wildly out of sync with everything else around Main & Broadway. It’s a modern glass building that looks like it belongs at Broadway & Cambie, and it’s going to strip all the charm from the neighbourhood. Is that the kind of “seed” we want?
17 Wendy // Oct 26, 2010 at 7:09 am
This is the first I’ve heard of this project as well, but based on what’s written here, I like the idea as a general concept.
It gives Vancouver more rental and ownership options, in a walkable, bike-able, and transit-oriented area (10 minutes walk to Canada Line at Cambie or Main Street Skytrain).
I agree the number of parking units seem high for an area with so many non-auto options, but that may be the city and not the developer asking. And, if underutilized, parking places can become bike parking cages, shared-auto options, etc. in the future.
Maybe some parking is destined to be visitor parking for the artists, retail, residents’ friends etc.
18 Simone // Oct 26, 2010 at 8:34 am
This is the first I’ve heard of this project as well. I’ve sat on a number of Mt. Pleasant community planning meetings as well and this is not what we discussed at all. The vision we had as residents of the neighborhood was more street friendly housing, such as 4 family dwellings, laneway housing and lower scale buildings (6 storeys) rather than intrusive towers. This plan does not fit into our heritage neighborhood. Let’s not add tall glass boxes in our area to block sunlight and views. I don’t live downtown for a reason – I hate the whole Concord development for it’s unimaginative architecture and mountain blocking walls. That doesn’t make a street friendly neighborhood. Let’s stick to blending with our heritage, not re-inventing it. Leave the area as the pedestrian, bike friendly place it currently is. I’ve been a resident for 13 years and plan to stay for many more years, but not if council changes it to the West End.
19 East Vancouverite // Oct 26, 2010 at 8:45 am
I like the proposed project, which is still only at the rezoning stage, according to the signs all around the site.
The brown/red colouring on the renders I saw at SSP:Vancouver is actually brick and not painted concrete and Frances’ initial description of the project having townhouses at the base is a bit off; the townhouses face onto the courtyard while retail (small shops on Broadway and two floors of larger shops like a grocey store and/or pharmacy above) wraps around the building on three sides.
There is a residential entrnace on Watson and the entrance to the artist production space is there too. This public amenity is a huge boon for the neighbourhood and more than replaces what was lost in the Christmas day fire and it will be operated by the non-profit Vancouver Community Arts Council, according to the architects.
I think that with the tower being located at 10th and Kingsway (not Main and Broadway) it should not overpower the Lee Building and the reality is that this site, and a fair number more along Kingsway, are going to see larger, taller buildings than Main Street. The Mt. Pleasant Neighbourhood Centres plan calls for a continuation of low to mid-rise buildings while taller buildings, with the very tallest being the subject site of this discussion, will run along Kingsway from the Main and Kingsway “Y” to 12th Ave.
20 Morley // Oct 26, 2010 at 8:45 am
This building is going to be more than twice as big as the one on Fraser that included social housing and had to have 3 floors hacked off because of community backlash. Those against it claimed the building was going to be too high!
We need to acknowledge that Vancouver has some bigotry problems against the poor. I think city council knows that social housing isn’t just Michael Geller’s “E” class of Vancouverites. There’s already poverty issues in Mount Pleasant.
This is an insult.
21 Shannon // Oct 26, 2010 at 9:04 am
My first thought on reading Frances’ post is that this is very similar to what happened with the Kingsway and Knight development. Huge development with towers. City and developers worked with community and relatively little fuss over the very high heights (not as high as this new proposed one though). Was supposed to help revitalize the area. We were excited about it — thought it would really make the street come alive (it was a total dead zone before).
There have been some benefits — the new library especially, and while the new PriceSmart not my first choice for groceries, the addition of a full size grocery store was needed in the area.
But overall, we’ve been very disappointed with the impact of the development. It’s enormous, and the streetscapes are not friendly/engaging.
The interior courtyard area sounded good, as in this new development, but it’s really just a giant driveway for the underground parkade — there’s no relief/escape from the busy major streets that converge at Knight/Kingsway/King Ed — which would have been very welcome (ie, a no vehicles courtyard with seating or cafe…). The whole thing just feels like a huge monolith squatting over the giant block it’s built on.
And much of the retail space remains empty, even though the development has been finished for well over a year (if I remember correctly). We’ve heard from some local businesses that the rents being asked are exhorbitant.
I am all in favour of doing what’s needed in terms of density, but I think there must be other ways of going about it. I look at areas like the Arbutus corridor, and along the 7thAve/Heather areas, and I see density that has a street-level feeling of safety and friendliness. The hulking tower approach seems to be reserved for the east side of the city.
22 Westender1 // Oct 26, 2010 at 10:35 am
It seems a bit surprising that this rezoning application is coming in prior to the adoption of the Mount Pleasant community plan – does anyone know why? The more than doubling of density (from the discretionary maximum of 3.0 under the existing zoning to the proposal at 6.37) would seem to need a community plan designation in place to be accommodated (but perhaps not with the almighty STIR program).
Also, it’s unfortunate the Planning Dept. doesn’t do a better job helping people to understand what density means, rather than allowing the discussion to focus simply on height. Doing so might result in a different mix of building types, rather than the tower/podium glass box that is becoming the signature of any new development.
23 D // Oct 26, 2010 at 10:52 am
Neat project, but a pity about the Jantzen/Cantu building; it’s unfortunate that they’re not at least keeping that façade on the ground level.
Agree wholeheartedly with the bike comment; my partner and I share our living room with four bikes for which we have no secure storage. Meanwhile, the underground parking is 2/3 empty (at $50/mo) and most tenants’ cars are fine out on the street.
Frances; can you clarify for sure whether the amount of parking is city- or developer-driven?
24 Tiktaalik // Oct 26, 2010 at 11:44 am
From what I recall about the general feel of the community plan was that it proposed taller towers along Kingsway and folks were comfortable with that and I think it was part of the final community plan.
The city website for Mount Pleasant hasn’t been updated for a bit. It still says that the plan will be voted on in council in “fall.” I guess maybe the developer had a look at the draft plan and is jumping the gun expecting smooth approval.
25 Joe Just Joe // Oct 26, 2010 at 2:07 pm
The additional parking is market driven and the developers choice. The city requires 290units and they are proposing 319 so 29 more then mandated.
It’s true many of those spaces won’t end up used, but they still make the units more marketable as many people will not buy a unit w/o a stall even if they themselves don’t have a car. They are worried about their own situation later on, and the fact if they go to resell at a later date the future purchaser may insist on a stall.
Perhaps the best solution is for someone to try and market a building with strata owned parking and no one owns the stalls, they would be rented out with all funds going back into the strata. I would think that selling all units would be a challenge though.
26 privatejet // Oct 26, 2010 at 2:19 pm
This project went to the urban design panel, last week. No decision or minutes posted yet, however for those who are curious, the preliminary plans were reviewed by the panel as a non-voting workshop in June. Minutes are here http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/udp/2010/Minutes/Jun16.html
27 Frances Bula // Oct 26, 2010 at 2:24 pm
@privatejet. I was there and it was approved unanimously.
28 Bill McCreery // Oct 26, 2010 at 6:04 pm
Received from a friend in Montreal. Here is what urbanism is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ni3x-uwAumo
If this doesn’t bring tears to your eyes….
& there’s not a tower in sight. I’ve stayed in downtown Montreal during such street festivals, of which there are many. It truly is wonderful. Our politicians & planners should use examples such as this as a measure of success in their efforts.
29 Tessa // Oct 26, 2010 at 7:22 pm
This is quite strange. It’s more than double the height of the other new buildings going up in that area, many of which are perfect size, well designed and add to the neighbourhood rather than impose upon it. 10-15 stories is perfectly reasonable, and you can fit a lot of density in that space. At the same time, Mount. Pleasant isn’t at all like Yaletown. It’s high density, but it’s different.
Now, those who know me know I’m not against density. I posted several comments on this forum in favour of the proposed development at Kingsway and Fraser, especially since it was providing affordable and social housing, and thought 11 stories was a good maximum for that area, though I live in that neighbourhood. I would say this is crossing the line, and just because they’ve already removed four stories doesn’t change that.
It’s a historic, pre-built neighbourhood, not an old industrial site where you can start anew, and I don’t think this is in keeping with the plan. I understand there’s going to be some tall buildings, and support that, including those that have been built already along Kingsway, but I don’t want to see Mount Pleasant turned into a developer’s ATM machine, where they can evict all the longterm residents and replace the old buildings with shiny new luxury condos. Chop off another six stories, keep some STIR benefits, then we can talk.
30 Tiktaalik // Oct 26, 2010 at 8:10 pm
@Tessa
I’m leaning the same way. Building up the area along Kingsway is fine, and that’s what was in the community plan, but I’m certainly wondering, “why so big?” which is what folks across the city are asking themselves about various projects in their own neighbourhoods. I had a friend at work send out an email about the proposed Burrard Gateway proposal today basically wondering the same thing, “why so big?”
I’m wondering what the numbers attached to the community plan were in terms of height. Certainly it was proposed to increase the height and scale along Kingsway but I don’t know if this is exceeding that and if so to what degree.
The other “why so big?” project in Mt. Pleasant/OV that irks me even more is the Opsal steel building down at 2nd and Quebec. There it’s 24 floors with about twice the height of the surrounding buildings and, in my opinion, an unworthy public amenity in restoring the Opsal Steel barn.
A positive spin on this is the artist space, because I know how incredibly difficult it is to find. Still I wonder if the city is folding to developer wishes much too fast with regard to public amenities and height bonuses.
Shannon mentioned that the Kingsway@Knight development had an empty useless courtyard and I hope that the city keeps that in mind and doesn’t consider the courtyard here to be any sort of public amenity. I’d advise ditching the courtyard and going with a smaller building(s).
31 Bill McCreery // Oct 26, 2010 at 8:35 pm
What’s missing from this discussion so far is a more precise discussion about the planning context. It seems to me, out of respect for the communities affected by & who have to live with these built PROPOSALS, the City, & Planning in particular, should have to present, up front [ie: now], a defense of the ‘why’ for the ‘what’ they are proposing. Presently it’s the other way round. Interested concerned neighbours, if they find out & then can understand the consequences, must defend themselves. That is backwards & needs to be changed.
What does the existing [community generated & supported?] plan specifically call for here? How does this PROPOSAL fit with that? Others above have suggested it exceeds it. If so, why are these bonuses & over-rides of the MPCP justifiable?
What special consideration needs to be given to this intersection which will be a major transit hub & because of the historic Broadway, Kingsway & Main intersection perhaps some added density can be justified. But, how much?
And, per the link in McC 28, will there be people spontaneously dancing & playing fiddles from the balconies & roofs as well as on the streets below when & if this project is built?
32 Lee // Oct 26, 2010 at 11:40 pm
The City held Open Houses where citizens could fill out questionnaires ostensibly to give direction to City planners regarding the future of Mount Pleasant. The questionnaire from the April 2010 Open Houses re the Mount Pleasant Community Plan produced comments, specifically about building heights. The comments regarding Broadway, Main, and Kingsway – Overall Concept Plan are on pages 98 to 108 on the City of Vancouver’s web site.
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cpp/mountpleasant/public/10apr/questionnairecomments.pdf
These community comments from pages 98 to 108 state the community does not want towers here. The comments repeatedly said the appropriate height for this area is a low to mid-rise building, no towers. But again, as was the case with the Broadway and Fraser development, the City of Vancouver is completely ignoring the wishes of the community.
I also attended many of the Mount Pleasant Community Plan meetings. This gargantuan tower was not discussed in those meetings. It was sprung upon the community at a Shopping Area meeting where architects for the developer and City staff spoke with one voice, this deal was settled behind closed doors, the wishes of the community are completely irrelevant to these people.
This developer is requesting 100% more density than is allowed on this site for providing 62 STIR rental units which will be rented at market price. The current allowed building height here is 3 storeys, the developer is going to be allowed to build 26 storeys. Again, greed and self interest of the developer over the wishes of the community. That’s the way City Hall operates these days!
The STIR rental units will not be affordable but will be rented at market price. 1 Kingsway rents for $1800 per month, this is not affordable to many people in this area.
The only amenity this developer is providing is an artist studio rental space which means the amenity is for a select few people.
Ms. Bula says “The Watson Street/back alley will be the parking entrance.” Watson Street will also be the delivery area for the 50 foot trucks delivering to the building, including a 20,000 sq ft retail space in this development. No big box retails was another consistent wish of the citizens in the questionnaires.
This council and planning department want density and height at any cost. The Rize Development Co donated thousands of dollars to Councilor Raymond Louie’s last election campaign.
This development is completely in opposition to what the community says they want. The community repeatedly said they wanted development to maintain the feel and look of the current community in scale and character. They said they wanted no high-rises.
Here are the comments from the September 20 2009 meeting. Uptown is the name the City gave to this area in that meeting. See pages 7 to 11 in the following web page for the comments.
http://vancouver.ca/commsvcs/planning/cpp/mountpleasant/shopping/pdf/09sep20stranscripts.pdf
33 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 27, 2010 at 12:15 am
We live some blocks away from this. Walking to school with my daughter, the building crane at the street end vista of 7th Avenue for another Mt. Pleasant tower is already harbinger and dark portents of what is happening to our city.
I hope that what Mt. Pleasant got is not what the West End and Marpole are going to get, Francis. I hope that Vancouver neighbourhoods en masse are going to get “good” urbanism, not this crap.
However, that hinges on a change in planning paradigm (not economics), and that is not yet a cooked goose.
I don’t know the history of the Lee Building (diminished now that the roof top sign has been scraped away), but that and the Beaux Art Post Office on 16th (?) define the character for this area. Anyone that cannot design to that cannon has no pants on.
We cannot endlessly repeat our concerns, or our vision. There comes a time when the facts on the ground are just too plain obvious, and it is better to keep the powder dry and wait for the inevitable changing of the guard.
I was walking in International Village today… Big towers, Big bucks, Big dreams, and yet on the sidewalk… an urbanism that is not working.
Go no further than the AIBC—the architect’s association headquarters fronting Victory Square—to see a building that turns its back on the street and presents no sidewalk presence whatsoever.
These are my professional colleagues, after all. Could they not have set up storefront offices for young upstart firms against the sidewalk, and given back to the city some of the vitality it sorely lacks?
So, what are we to make of 26 stories on Kingsway & Bway?? Yawn… The darkest hour is just before dawn.
Have another nap. Daybreak is coming.
34 Roger Kemble // Oct 27, 2010 at 5:11 am
Ummmmmm . . . interesting . . .
CBC last night made quite a thing out of Jim Pattison upgrading his downtown Toyota site into a virtual city within a city.
Add Main at Kingsway’s tower and Marine Gateway, Vancouver’s urbanism may yet become an international Force Majeure.
To simplify (early, now is the time), these projects, IMO, fall into two categories:
1. Understanding that projects of this magnitude may have a geminating period of two years or more, they may well be the tag end of the pre-Olympic fervour desperately competing to be international.
or
2. Local money is looking for any port in a storm: i.e. as currency loses value, commodities, even Vancouver real estate, in any form, becomes the haven of last resort.
Only time will tell if any of these projects materialise into anything that is remotely liveable or affordable: views notwithstanding.
So far, the omens remain equivocal!
In the meantime a good scrutinising look, just in case, is in order.
Errrr . . . of course the obsessive bike-istas must have their say: remembering, of course, there is always more to any project than the composite saddle.
In both cases the typology is tower as density and both are on established or proposed TX while responsive to the bicicletta: so far so good.
Acton Ostry have recognised the amenity of peripheral street facade and atrium within: it remains to be seen if the latter is inaccessible private property or and if, indeed, it will be overwhelmed by the looming tower.
The Pattison project, as early embryo, needs closer scrutiny: time to ride herd.
Is the Pattison tower, competing with Wall for height, driven by economics or ego?
The issue is moot so long as the general figure ground of the site is designed as an integrated composition of interwoven pedestrian place and public spaces: chiaroscuro, texture, colour et. al.
A huge innovation for the city would be to declare all these interstices spaces between as public property to, at least, relieve the owners of the expense of security to shooo off innocent young skate boarders, not in compliance with a dress code, or for that matter octogenarians like me.
This could be a trade-off more fecund that the usual . . . errrrr . . . artists’ studios which often turn out to be anything but!
But, of course, ideology is paramount: private property is sacrosanct.
As always Mies’ quip, God is in the details, rules and now is the time to bug the hell out of the developers and architects to get it right for once.
35 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 27, 2010 at 8:42 am
Good tie-in Urbie: the Pattison project.
As you point out (I’ve just heard about it on the radio) it is in the vicinity of the Wall Centre. That one already raises an important issue: can we complete these maga projects in such a manner that we are rebuilding Burrard Street at the same time?
So far the answer is “Build What?”. No one is connecting the development of a city-within-a-city with having a positive effect in the quartier overall.
Radio also reported that the Pattison project bites into one of the Queen Elizabeth Park view cones. Let’s see what comes of that.
However, the key difference between the Pattison project and the other towers you mention (Mt. Pleasant & Gateway) is that the Pattison project is downtown. That’s a tower zone, and a good place to experiment with hyper urbanism.
Kingsway & Main is an entirely different quartier… or it was until we start approving the wrong character and the wrong built form for its ongoing development.
Good urbanism is seamless with the past. We don’t want to imitate tradition, we want to extend it forward.
Remember, we are not “adding density” with a 26 storey building. If we were to build the west side of Main Street to the Lee Building streetwall, for example, we would achieve as much or more overall density than by allowing one developer here, and another developer there to get all the density on one site that the area can realistically support.
If we compare the base treatment of the Lee Building to the bases of the buildings on Abbott at Keefer and at Pender, there is a world of difference. The Lee Building is brash urbanism: its piers come down to the curb (i.e. the public R.O.W. is taken over by the tower)—you can see the same thing happening at a different scale in the Renaissance arcades of Bolognia and Mantova.
As a consequence, the shop fronts open up into an urban space unique in the city. All the traffic noise and mayhem gets a different treatment here.
Then, there is the issue of the cross-section of the piers themselves. At the Lee Building, and at the International Village, these are humungous architectural elements coming down to the public realm.
At the Lee Building, I suspect, they cover the public sidewalk due to the fact that the property line was moved back to create a 99-foot R.O.W. from what was platted as a 66-foot street.
At the International Village, such considerations were never really under scrutiny. I can see no evidence that there was a “urban plan” for the International Village as a whole. The sequence of urban spaces is just the same as anywhere else—the stair rising to Dunsmuir street level notwithstanding. The same comments apply to North Shore False Creek and the Olympic Village… places designed all at one time, with nothing that is all of one place.
Everywhere you look there are enormous stores on the ground, with long lines of dead storefront, most of it papered over with posters as at the AIBC.
PS
The square at the OL will be the first square I know fronted by a big box. The entire eastern flank is the London Drugs retailer.
36 MB // Oct 27, 2010 at 9:06 am
This is my neighbourhood.
The 26-storey tower is out of context with the neighbourhood, and would remain so even with a future rapid transit station placed in the parking lot to the west.
The Stella (just up the road) is a clean-lined 12-storey development by the same architects. It is probably the maximum height desired within the neighbourhood context 500m to the south.
Lop of another 6-10 storeys from the Kingsway x Broadway proposal, do a study of context, and we’ll talk.
37 eddy m // Oct 27, 2010 at 10:04 am
I have been a resident of the area for 5 years.
I agree that a 26 storey tower is out of context.
Besides, a tower city rarely offers a rich street life.
The developer-oriented, lot-per-lot building of the city will not result in cohesive neighbourhoods if STIR programs allow projects to steer away from the vision set in local area plans.
I think much better results can be achieved with an overhaul (smaller) increase in density in the entire area, aiming for human-scale development with better public space integration and better building/street interface.
38 Roger Kemble // Oct 27, 2010 at 10:22 am
A lesson long forgotten . . .
and . . .
now to be relearned . .
Vancouver’s esteemed architects and planners and developers . . .
take heed . . .
http://members.shaw.ca/rogerkemble/figure.ground/figure.ground.html
Lest you forget . . . you are building for real people . . .
39 Tiktaalik // Oct 27, 2010 at 10:55 am
In my opinion Stella and Jacobsen are good examples of what should be going on in this neighbourhood.
Stella along Kingsway is taller, but not imposing and out of scale with the area. Jacobsen, down on 2nd at the base of the hill amongst other low lying buildings is wide and only 6 stories, and fits in exactly with the tone of the artist lofts south of it.
Both are pretty, well designed buildings that lack the cheesy, cheap brick accents common on so many other developments in the area (I love brick but I am just not seeing it done well anywhere…).
@Lee
Thanks for the interesting link to the comments from the open house.
One of the interesting comments is on page 107:
“Look at the Amacon arts deal at 7th and Scotia – ‘District; – what artist can pay these rates & only 10 years? It’s meaningless and offensive to artists”
It makes one wonder about the artist studios for this site and if, they may not actually play the purpose one expects. Similarly to how STIR does not equate to affordable housing, merely market rental, we should strive to make artist studios that artists can actually afford. I know there’s a massive need for artist space, but it’s to a large degree it’s need for kids straight out of Emily Carr that are working retail jobs and can’t afford much at all.
Lee also linked to the transcript of one of the community plan meetings where I referenced people discussing higher buildings around the Kingsgate mall site. I wrote earlier that folks seemed pretty ok with what was shown. Here the notes from the city say “150 ft ok”. I’m not sure what the sort of conversion between ft and stories is, but I’m pretty sure 26 stories is well, well above 150 ft.
40 Tiktaalik // Oct 27, 2010 at 11:02 am
Ha! That second to last paragraph is muddled and a bit confusing but I’m hoping folks understand what point I’m trying to make with regard to STIR and artist space.
We know that rental does not necessarily mean affordable housing and similarly it seems that artist space does not necessarily mean affordable artist space. Affordable artist space is what is truly needed and it would be good to know what we’re really getting here.
41 Bill McCreery // Oct 27, 2010 at 11:20 am
@ MB 36. My comment re: density did not mean height by default as per the current Vancouver mindset. It seems to me that if the planning department, or any developer wants to exceed the existing allowable zoning &/or deviate from the community plan they should have to present their arguments, not behind closed doors but, to the community @ a conceptual, sketch stage. And, as I said above, they should have to convince the neighbourhood to change the community plan to allow what they want to do, not the other way round as has become the practice.
Your ‘my neighbourhood’ more mutted concerns MB & Lewis remind me of my own reaction to the 1304 Hornby & now the Pattison impositions on my neighbourhood. It gets serious when it’s personal.
42 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 27, 2010 at 11:56 am
MB I think they got you to take the bait already. Consider the following:
(a) Thinking one site at a time; starting with their number and asking a little be lopped off.
(b) Not making transportation an integral part of the plan.
(c) Defaulting on human scaled urban environments.
The time to deal with these things is not, as Frances pointed out earlier this year, AFTER private interests have invested a great deal of time and capital on a proposal.
Here’s a sketch of what the new planning paradigm would have to offer.
CHARACTER & BUILT FORM
The Lee Building is 6 stories on top of a base. Those floor heights will be between 10 and 12 feet (I don’t have time to go over there to make measurements). Let’s assume an average height of 12 feet per floor, including the base, for a total of 84 feet. It is located on the north side of Broadway, and the west side of Main, minimizing the amount of shadows it throws on the public realm.
The streetwall to R.O.W. ratio of the Lee Building turns out to be about 1 to 1 (building height to street width).
HIERARCHY OF STREET SPACES
Street widths from Van Map:
Kingsway R.O.W. 99-feet
Broadway R.O.W. 80-feet (average)
Main Street R.O.W. 99-feet
Watson Street R.O.W. 33-feet
MB, you might tell us about Watson Street, it appears to be a forgotten piece of urban magic in our midst.
It is about 3,000 feet long, and terminates at a kind of goose foot pattern at 18th street, where Main bends to the west. These are unique and memorable conditions in urban space which can help give meaning and form to the experience of our neighbourhoods.
Watson street should be a focus. A special urban spine that takes some of the high volume pedestrian activity from the frenzy of Main Street (bustle is good) and feeds it onto a public realm that is intimate and human scaled.
URBAN ROOMS
Kingsway (road to New Westminster, first capital of our province) and Main (trestle over False Creek opened up Mount Pleasant for development) are our earliest thoroughfares. The point where they converge one block to the north of the proposed tower should be a special site in our city.
BLOCK MASSING: CONTINUITY OF THE STREETWALL
To generate an urban quartier, the surest way is to extend the traditions of the past into the future. This creates urban memory, and can be achieved simply by building continuous streetwall, rather than towers.
Streetwall equal in height to the fronting R.O.W. will create shadowed conditions most of the year around. On the south side of the street, and on the east side or morning light side of the street, a streetwall half the height of the fronting R.O.W. works better in our lattitude.
Furthermore, the horizontal lines established by the Lee Buildings spare but sure handed façade treatment can be used as “precedent” in the neighbourhood (whomever this Mr. Lee was, he seemed to have got the urbanism right).
MONUMENT AS URBAN FIGURE
The Post Office on 15th and Main provides an example of public building as “monument”—what the designers of the brand new community centre failed to understand. These public buildings function as the counterpoint to the background architecture of the streetwall urbanism. They build visual cues in urban space that are valuable for place making and orientation.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Finally, we have to plan the transportation. BRT/LRT on Main Street and Kingsway to provide service capacity and constrain private vehicular movements to the point that these streets can support social activity, and fronting residential, as well as serve as transportation arteries.
Deep breath… and either BRT/LRT or subway on Broadway.
MB I think you took the bait already. Consider the following:
(a) Thinking one site at a time; starting with their number and asking something be lopped off.
(b) Not making transportation an integral part of the plan.
The time to deal with these things is not, as Frances pointed out earlier this year, AFTER private interests have invested a great deal of time and capital on a proposal.
CHARACTER & BUILT FORM
The Lee Building is 6 stories on top of a base. Those floor heights will be between 10 and 12 feet. I don’t have time to go over there to make measurements, so let’s assume an average height of 12 feet per floor, including the base, for a total of 84 feet. It is located on the north side of Broadway, and the west side of Main, reducing the amount of shadows it throws on the public realm.
HIERARCHY OF STREET SPACES
From Van Map:
Kingsway R.O.W. 99-feet
Broadway R.O.W. 80-feet (average)
Main Street R.O.W. 99-feet
Watson Street R.O.W. 33-feet
You might tell us about Watson Street, MB, it is about 3,000 feet long, and terminates at a kind of goose foot pattern at 18th street, where Main bends to the west. This are unique and memorable conditions in urban space which can help give meaning and form to our neighbourhoods.
Watson street should be the focus of a special urban spine that takes some of the high volume pedestrian activity from the frenzy of Main Street (bustle is good) and feeds it onto a public realm that is intimate and human scaled.
URBAN ROOMS
Kingsway (to New Westminster, first capital of our province) and Main (trestle over False Creek opened up Mount Pleasant for development) are our earliest thoroughfares. The point where they converge one block to the north should be a special site in our city.
BLOCK MASSING: CONTINUITY OF THE STREETWALL
To generate an urban quartier, the surest way to extend the traditions of the past into the future, and thus create urban memory, is by building continuous streetwall, not towers.
Streetwall equal in height to the fronting R.O.W. will create shadowed conditions most of the year around. On the south side of the street, and on the east side or morning light side of the street, a streetwall half the height of the fronting R.O.W. works better.
Furthermore, the horizontal lines established by the Lee Buildings spare but sure handed façade treatment can be used as “precedent” in the neighbourhood. Whomever this Mr. Lee was, he seemed to have got the urbanism right.
MONUMENT AS URBAN FIGURE
The Post Office on 15th and Main provides an example of public building as “monument”. What the designers of the brand new community centre failed to understand. These public buildings act as the counterpoint to the background architecture of the streetwall urbanism.
A 10 minute walking distance separates these two sites, suggesting each as the focus, core or “heart” of side-by-side quartiers.
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS
Finally, we have to plan the transportation. BRT/LRT on Main Street and Kingsway to provide service capacity and constrain private vehicular movements to the point that these streets can support social activity, and fronting residential, as well as serve as transportation arteries.
QUARTIER FOOTPRINTS
Add to the first six principles on last one: Quartier Footprints, and we would have success, rather than a controversial building project in our midst.
Not just your neighbourhood, MB, but as many as six quartiers contiguous with the pedestrian shed centred on Kingsway and Main could be planned to round out the human experience of place. For example, the Opsal Steel building on 2nd is in the location of a second continguous quartier to Main & Kingsway.
… An experience that is made possible only if we design our neighbourhoods with human scale.
43 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 27, 2010 at 1:09 pm
Sorry for the messed up post, folks. After “CHARACTER & BUILT FORM” reappears for a second time, skip down to “Quartier Fooprints” and you’ll have the intended text.
44 Roger Kemble // Oct 27, 2010 at 1:28 pm
@ Lewis . . .
No need to apologise . . .
Nice stuff . . .
Very clear . . .
45 Lee // Oct 27, 2010 at 2:23 pm
@ Bill McCreery Many folks, myself included became involved in this community planning process under the naive presumption that citizens were actually being given a chance to be involved. Sadly this is not the case, decisions are not made here, ideas are not entertained in any meaningful way. The community meetings serve two main purposes, to allow The City to proclaim later that there was community consultation, and to soften the blow for Council to some extent when it comes times for the Public Hearing, a rubber stamp event which takes place at the very end of the planning process after plans have been given final approval and every bit of bonus density and extra height has been bought and paid for. The Public Hearing also is a sham, an insult and a collossal waste of citizen’s time and taxpayer’s money. This City is being run by big money developers and the City staff and policitians who are in their pockets. This may all sound like the ravings of a cynic but it is in fact simply the cold hard truth. And getting these guys out of office won’t help, the other party is just as bad. So all I can say is “Go Canucks!” we need something to cheer for in this City.
46 Roger Kemble // Oct 27, 2010 at 2:34 pm
PS . . .
No the figure ground does not preclude the tower although I thinq common sense should intervene . . .
Figure ground is about the human experience at . . . errrr . . . GROUND LEVEL . . .
47 Ron // Oct 27, 2010 at 3:02 pm
Hi neighbour! Frances, I think the reason that the community (that we live in) is not gonna be questioning these condos like we questioned the social housing at Fraser and Broadway is because…(wait for it)…. it is condos and not social housing!
Not a fit for the neighbourhood? Not a fit for the cheque cashing operations, the crackhouses and the abandoners of old trucks? This is a problem?
Call me a gentrifier if you must, but this project means that there will be many new people in the neighbourhood who are, for want to a better term, gainfully employed. In other words, people who will be heard if their streets look crummy, if their schools are rundown, and the parks full of needles and sleeping douchebags.
48 Tiktaalik // Oct 27, 2010 at 3:17 pm
The city needs to have a discussion with the community (perhaps during an election) about under whether there should be rules for building outside of the community plan and what those should be. Right now it seems like it’s an “everything’s on the table” sort of negotiation and it would be good to have a discussion about whether that’s the right way to go about things.
We should feel comfortable handing over planning powers to those whom we elect and to those with city planning expertise, and I wouldn’t want to tie anyones hands up with overbearing and complicated rules, but on the other hand there may be some value in figuring out at least some sort of framework for what’s on the table and what’s off the table.
If something is well, well outside of that framework, (ie. Wow this is over x% higher than the max we’re supposed to negotiate! On the other hand this is exceptional and maybe it’s a good idea…) then maybe the community plan needs to be updated and/or the process needs to be kicked up to a more intensive level of public consultation.
Other related concepts I’m interested in is whether the city has a firm list of what constitutes a community amenity, what the real value of these things are, and whether there’s any sort of policy on to what degree negotiated amenities must remain in the community.
I wouldn’t ever want to prevent people from creating innovative ideas for buildings and communities. I wouldn’t want to prevent people from getting things done. However, I am concerned that the city is doing all sorts of things without any guiding policy. Maybe it exists and I’m not aware of it? It may not have occurred to anyone at the city that the public would be interested in knowing what goes on behind the curtains.
49 Frances Bula // Oct 27, 2010 at 3:59 pm
@ Ron. (Hi neighbour back!) I agree that most people around Main/Fraser/Kingsway are thrilled when something gets torn down and new market housing goes up because they see it as all part of the neighbourhood improving. There’s a condo a minute going up these days, it seems like, and I don’t hear one word of objection.
On the other hand, I know there was a component of people who had no problem with the social housing but did not like the height. Like some of the other posters here, they don’t like the tower look of downtown and were under the impression that Mount Pleasant, Fairview, Kits, Commercial — the band of housing just outside the central city — were going to have a different look.
50 evilfred // Oct 27, 2010 at 4:15 pm
This is completely ridiculous. There is nothing in the area remotely close to 26 storeys high. The development at Fraser was half the height and still controversial. I’ll be at the public workshop thing with bells on. Though I expect that the public meeting will be a dog and pony show as usual (like we got with the park where the MPCC used to be) and nothing will change.
51 evilfred // Oct 27, 2010 at 4:18 pm
“Call me a gentrifier if you must, but this project means that there will be many new people in the neighbourhood who are, for want to a better term, gainfully employed. In other words…”
In other words, people who will raise your property values and price out all of the young renters living in the Kingsway/Fraser “Void” and Main St areas. You know, the people who give the neighbourhood character. There won’t be any “hip young artists” left to inhabit any of the buildings and the area will be left a cultural wasteland like Yaletown.
52 pacpost // Oct 27, 2010 at 4:42 pm
Let me add my voice to those who disagree with the nature of this project. Based on the plans at J3′s link, this building is wrong for the area. Increased density can be achieved through other means than a tall, rather massive tower.
Outside of the downtown core, I feel we should be aiming for increased density based on a European/Montreal style of architecture. 5-8 story buildings, which will still allow for enough density to justify improved rapid transit. These ugly clumps of very high towers at irregular intervals will make Vancouver resemble parts of Los Angeles.
53 Tessa // Oct 27, 2010 at 5:39 pm
@Ron: I’m offended by your comment and hope to make sure everyone knows that not everyone in the community believes that people who aren’t rich shouldn’t be able to afford a home. If all the beautiful, older character homes and apartments in this area get transformed into shiny condos, people like me will have nowhere else to go, and that means people who work, go to school, support local business and culture. There are thousands of short or long-term residents who truly care about the community who will be swept up in that wave, and to call them all crackhouse patrons is incorrect and prejudice.
If you truly want to live amongst glass towers and not have to deal with poorer neighbours, I’m sure there’s a vacancy in False Creek North.
54 Tiktaalik // Oct 27, 2010 at 6:11 pm
Count me as a strong detractor of Ron’s vile viewpoint.
55 Tessa // Oct 27, 2010 at 8:51 pm
Also, @FrancesBula,
I don’t think everyone is so thrilled at all the old things being torn down. Yes, there’s a lot of things in the area that people won’t miss (the old car dealerships along kingsway for one), and some level of redevelopment is a good thing and people recognize that, but there’s also a lot of people who are concerned the soul of the neighbourhood will be lost if we go too fast.
It’s the same with how the neighbourhood is now being called SoMa instead of Mount Pleasant, its historic name. Mount Pleasant is a distinct place unique in Vancouver – a historical community. SoMa, on the other hand, is a borrowed phrase from other cities in other countries used as a marketing real-estate term designed specifically to break with that history and that sense of unique place. It’s not even geographically accurate: Main and Broadway is hardly south of anything in this city.
I, for one, will stick to the historic name.
56 Frances Bula // Oct 27, 2010 at 9:40 pm
@Tessa. Actually, Soma was first used by the little restaurant that was one of the first of the hipster establishments to move in on Main. It was picked up by the realtors later. I don’t actually hear people use it much any more. I used it because it was short and so fit into the amount of room I had for my headline bar.
Anyway, I agree, not everyone is uniformly delighted about everything coming down. I for one still mourn the worker cabins inhabited by the anarchists on Watson, which always had amazing Christmas decorations. (Gone in the fire of 2002? 2003?) I even kind of miss that grubby office building at Quebec and Broadway. I also dread the day that all the auto-repair shops around here are gentrified. I don’t even mind the car dealerships.
But I would say that people in this neighbourhood are not as attached to every scrap and post the way the West End is, for example.
57 Lee // Oct 27, 2010 at 10:00 pm
@Ron
I don’t mind your language, but I think you miss the primary bone of contention, 26 storeys! In Mount Pleasant! This Vancouver planning department and Council have been sold the idea by slick, very rich developers that massive towers are NEEDED to achieve ambitious density goals, and that they will add prestige and architectural character to the city. Citizens concerns for traditional style and liveability are going unheard, all over the city.
58 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 27, 2010 at 10:10 pm
The most difficult part of an urban design process may be identifying the building types necessary to hang on to what Tessa has eloquently called “the soul of the neighbourhood”. However, the procedure is very easy to outline. It consists of identifying a handful of building types, zoning which areas will receive said building types, and adding up the resulting intensification at full build out.
Process completed, I can guarantee you no one will see any need to build a single tower in order to achieve “sustainable neighbourhood densities”.
Along the way we will have divorced ourselves of the biggest lie, namely the one that we need to build towers in order to add density; do sustainability; make profits—make that ‘stand to make inordinate profits’—etc.
The fact is that towers depress the density achievable on lots adjacent. Towers represent a “spike” in build out. The benefits accrue to one site and one site only. Competitive advantage is is taken away from neighbouring sites. No one will build next to a tower; across the street from a tower; etc.
“Tower Spacing” becomes the second cypher in a two dimensional tower urbanism where the first cypher—always—is counting typical floors.
BUILDING TYPES
(1) Single bungalow on a 33 x 122.5-foot lot.
This one remains the same. With three units per lot, the gross density achieved is an impressive 18 units/acre. The average unit size is 800 s.f. One unit has a roof deck; one unit has a front door yard; and one unit gets the rear garden. Very good stuff.
(2) Fee simple, zero-setback house.
The bread and butter of Vancouver quartier intensification that is still more or less prohibited by provincial or civic statute… It’s just too difficult to follow all that stuff and know which authority has jurisdiction. Suffice it to say that what makes Boston’s Beacon Hill, or Montreal’s urbanism—3.5 stories high BTW, not the 5-6 claimed above—have human-scale and be spectacular is this building type.
This very building type that for reasons nobody knows we are not able to build here in our town.
Density yield is 65 units/acre. Almost a four-fold intensification over Type#1. There is a front door yard; a rear yard; a garage on the rear lane; and a roof deck of embarrassingly ample dimensions.
(3) The Lee Building. 85-foot streetwall building. Density yield here awaits modelling and design. However, its use should be restricted to north streetwalls and west streetwalls.
(4) 50-foot streetwall. This would be the compliment to the Lee Building Type, most often built fronting the sidewalk opposite Type#3. Density here is also about 65 units/acre. There is retail on the ground floor; underground parking; and full accessibility with elevators, etc.
(5) Special sites. The urban design plan would identify key sites in the quartier(s) that call for special buildings to act as markers and makers of place. If someone wants to plop down a tower, these sites would be the place to argue for them. However, what is really envisioned is what the OV got right. The Salt Building (monumental architecture/special site) fronting an urban room.
Sophia Street
As an add-on to the discussion of building types, one must recommend Sophia street to the attention of the interested urbanist. Just one block east of Watson, Sophia Street presents some remarkable variations in the platting that can teach us a lot going forward. Specifically, in a neighbourhood where lots are typically plated with a north-south orientation, Sophia has a few examples of end-grain platting. Lots that orient east-west, and front Sophia rather than turn a side onto this ever more interesting street.
I have previously remarked about the row of cottages at 15th (east side). I am delighted to add to these a set of garden apartments at 17th (west side). Both are from the same era, easily dated to the pre-1945 period. Both merit our special attention.
There is no point guessing what “quartier build out” might attain if we were to follow the guidelines set out by the eight principles I have recorded here. The right thing to do is to design and measure total build out as part of a quartier urban planning charrette. I am quite confident that population at full build out would be the equivalent to 26-storey towers because the infill sites are just so much more numerous than the tower sites, and—since land assembly is not required—so much easier to get done. Any developer or builder, not just the giant and the elite, would be able to partake of this process of regeneration.
Because building types 1&2 would include “mortgage helper units”, the problem of affordable rental housing is taken care of as a function of intensification.
59 Ron // Oct 27, 2010 at 11:01 pm
@Lee
I didn’t address the height issue, no. Because I don’t understand it at all. Nor will we need to. Dollars to donuts that the developer will bring out the STIR calculator at council and launch a numbers barrage at the nicer, good-thinking people here, so that council will concede only a modest reduction of floors.
Don’t get me wrong: I think towers are grotesque and inherently unsafe and I’d never live in one, but it makes sense to build ONE here to attract a top anchor tenant in the retail below. This could act as a development magnet, not in the tear-down sense, but to eventually revitalize this neighbourhood’s retail scene. Imagine real businesses displacing the squalid drug shacks, er, convenience stores, on East Broadway between Main and Clark. I fail to see how that robs anyone of precious character. If they need more of that kind of character there’s still the Whalley flats.
60 Ron // Oct 27, 2010 at 11:04 pm
@ Lewis
Very informative post, and tactful unlike me. But is there an element of wish-thinking in your postulation that affordable rental housing will occur as a result of mortgage helpers? Is it not just as likely that the 33x122ers will just see three incredibly expensive rentals instead of one?
61 Ron // Oct 27, 2010 at 11:11 pm
@ Tessa
I agree about soul if by that you mean, why the heck should I have to move to Pitt Meadows. Affordability and facilitation of culture and art are indeed social boons of considerable moral weight. But this area is just too inherently valuable to keep as is, so that means densification and new buildings (which, of course, are up to code — I don’t find low water pressure or burning to death in a collapsing building a particularly charming heritage feature).
There has to be some way to do this.
What about rent control? Cost sharing of community space?
62 Ron // Oct 27, 2010 at 11:24 pm
@ Tessa
Re my ill-tone. No offence was meant, and I am sorry it was taken.
63 Tessa // Oct 27, 2010 at 11:50 pm
@Ron 61/62
Soul also means having a mix of people, income, groups, culture, but most importantly people. A place for everyone. That’s what gives this place inherent value. I’m not sure why you feel you would have to move to Pitt Meadows.
Of course there’s going to be densification, and that’s what the social housing at Broadway and Fraser was an example of. Densification shouldn’t be contingent upon the new people moving in being owners instead of renters , and earning a salary not everyone will ever be able to attain.
As for rent control, it’s being done, but that doesn’t help if nobody is building new affordable rental housing (or when it is proposed, it gets opposed by residents). And rent control only works in older buildings with long-term residents. If those buildings are redeveloped, we lose that housing, and people have nowhere to go.
As for #59, if by “top anchor tenant” you mean big box chain store or grocer, I think it’s been mentioned above the community has spoken and as a group said that’s not the kind of retail scene they want to see. That’s certainly not going to help many of the smaller businesses. I agree it would be nice to see some newer tenants in some of those areas east of Prince Edward, but I don’t see how this is the kind of building to encourage that. It’s more likely to pull likely tenants away.
As for the apology, it’s accepted, and I appreciate the gesture.
64 Tessa // Oct 27, 2010 at 11:56 pm
@Lewis 58
Bravo. I quite like your idea, and I quite like the idea of doing a neighbourhood charette (specifically, one that involves local residents, not just experts. From what I’ve found most charettes in this part of the world seem to involve only experts, while when I was up north they did one involving anyone who was interested and could afford the time off to take part)
Still, I’m not sure mortgage helpers alone would cut the affordability problem, though many of the overall units would likely be more affordable, especially if done without all the frills we often see.
65 Tessa // Oct 27, 2010 at 11:57 pm
@Frances Bula: very interesting tidbit of local history. I’m going to have to go and digest that for a minute.
66 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 28, 2010 at 10:02 am
“it makes sense to build ONE here to attract a top anchor tenant in the retail below. This could act as a development magnet, not in the tear-down sense, but to eventually revitalize this neighbourhood’s retail scene. Imagine real businesses displacing the squalid drug shacks, er, convenience stores, on East Broadway between Main and Clark.”
Ron 59
The problem with this approach, Ron, is that it is the International Village (as I commented earlier) and it doesn’t work. Here we can test options to the BiG BoX by requiring retail on Main, Broadway & Kingsway to present a syncopated frontage on the public realm (small start-up and artist spaces wrapped around large retail). We have the beginning of that already on Broadway between Cambie and Quebec, so it is not a total rethink for the developer.
I LIKE tacky…
“Is it not just as likely that the 33x122ers will just see three incredibly expensive rentals instead of one?”
Ron 60
Everything is possible. But I don’t think so, because what I’m quoting I’ve designed for friends, and it is working just as I describe it. There is a long tradition of the mortgage helper. I can be used to keep aging homeowners in the place they lived all their lives once the kids grow up and move on.
“what I’ve found most charettes in this part of the world seem to involve only experts, while when I was up north they did one involving anyone who was interested and could afford the time off to take part…
I’m not sure mortgage helpers alone would cut the affordability problem, though many of the overall units would likely be more affordable, especially if done without all the frills we often see.”
Tessa 64
Getting stakeholder participation is key, and a lot of this work happens before the charrette, and after the charrette. We’re working on it.
The mortgage helpers are “market affordable”.
There is the whole range of assisted and non-market housing that should also in the mix of every Vancouver quartier. However, consider that the point of the “mortgage helper” is also about the people holding the mortgage, not just the ones renting. What we are trying to do is to get people who are renting now options to own.
67 Bill McCreery // Oct 28, 2010 at 1:08 pm
@ Lee 45. Your dissolution is no doubt shared by many, including me. The entire process is broken & as much as I find these rich discussions to be interesting, they’re not going to materially affect what’s happening with the miriad of spot rezoning happening all over the City. Proof of that was the approval of the 1304 Hornby & W. 6th spot rezonings last week.
Another issue which is central to these considerations is the LIFT / CAC payments. Aside from the problems resulting from the broken planning & consultation process, the City is also involved in selling instant FSR to willing takers [sort of like Socred 'funny money' for those who can remember that far back]. What started out as a well intended initiative to rightfully return to the City a portion of the increased land value from increases in FSR has been abused to the point, in my view, that the City appears to be in a conflict of interest. It appears they are more interested in obtaining LIFT $’s from developers than they are in conducting a proper planning / consultation / design approval / implementation process. This conflict of interest is fundamental to the disfunction of a healthy process & has spread across the City.
68 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 28, 2010 at 1:12 pm
I agree, Bill.
69 Dr. Frankentower // Oct 28, 2010 at 1:32 pm
The MO of failed Vancouver City Planning, or
The Neighbourhood Horrors Checklist
*
The proposed development at Broadway and Kingsway:
Fails to incorporate or consult Local Area Plan (still unpublished) in development plans.
Check.
Fails to adequately inform local residents of planning workshops, design meetings, consultation, etc. Project seems to appear out of nowhere (thanks for informing us Frances!).
Check.
Grossly out of scale and character with the surrounding neighbourhood.
Check.
Disregard for historical plat and heritage, including the demolition of historic buildings.
Check.
Includes tower and podium design.
Check.
Tower has maximum glass exposure on all sides, requiring extra energy to heat and cool.
Check.
Tower blocks existing views and physically fragments neighbourhood.
Check.
Building density increases developer’s margins without providing meaningful community amenities or civic infrastructure.
Check.
Rezoning establishes a precedent for more over-height buildings on nearby blocks (Main and Broadway fire site, Kingsgate, etc.). Land-lift is Easy Money for Planning Dept. and eclipses neighbourhood visioning.
Check.
Inflates surrounding real estate values, residential and commercial rents (having the opposite effect to that which is intended with STIR).
Check.
Exceeds 1 parking space/1 unit, encouraging continued proliferation of automobile use in urban environment, and multi-car households. Full parking inclusion uniformly raises unit costs, which compromises the stated STIR goal of greater affordability.
Check and Check Again.
*
In conclusion, this development scores very high on the Neighbourhood Horror Meter, and will result in another new monstrosity looming on the skyline that will haunt local residents for decades.
Needless to say, it gets a full and ringing endorsement from Dr. Frankentower.
Happy Halloween!
70 Westender1 // Oct 28, 2010 at 2:52 pm
LOL – Dr. Frankentower, that was both
a.) wonderfully witty and
b.) sad, that it is so close to the truth.
But you forgot:
Obligatory symbolic tree(s) on roof of tower
Check, x 3
71 Soma Yuppie // Oct 29, 2010 at 6:07 am
A new tower won’t suck the charm and character out of the neighbourhood. The new Tim Hortons has already done that. And what idiot tagger thinks that Tim Hortons is gentrification? Then Mark’s Wearhouse is haute couture.
72 Longtime Resident // Oct 29, 2010 at 8:24 am
I remember the good old days when Mount Pleasant had real character, all the prostitutes on the street corners adding charm to the area, giving friendly smiles to all the men passing by. Also the drug users occupying buildings, they give the area real soul, they were real authentic people, not the new fake yuppie condo owners with their latte breakfast and land rovers. I wish yesterday would return. Mt. Pleasant really lived up to its namesake back then.
73 MPBCN // Oct 29, 2010 at 3:51 pm
I’m a resident of Mount Pleasant who also attended many of the community meetings.
To resolve the issue of building this 26 foot tower in our heritage area we as citizens must tell the Mayor and Council this is not what the community has said we want.
@Lee provided us with the comments from the community open houses and a workshop. In the Open House questionnaire the question the citizens were asked was “Do you agree with pursuing additional density and height on the site bounded by Broadway, Kingsway, Watson, and 10th Avenue to achieve a more appropriate built form and important benefits?” I’ve read those comments and, yes, when the citizens commented on the height point they specifically said NO TOWERS, low to mid-rise (5 – 8 storeys) buildings on this site.
We agreed that there could be more height but to a limit. The current height allowed is 3 storeys, an additional jump to 8 storeys is a huge bonus for the property owner here and they should provide huge amenities for this additional height.
The Mount Pleasant Community Plan has not yet gone to Council for approval. It is scheduled for the Planning and Environment meeting at City Hall on November 18, 2010 at 2 pm.
The public is allowed to speak at this meeting. If you can’t attend at least write a letter or email.
http://vancouver.ca/ctyclerk/mayorcouncil/speaktocouncil.htm
If you want to speak to Council about a specific item that is being considered at a Regular Council or Standing Committee meeting, you have the following options:
1. Mail a written request to:
City Clerk’s Office
Third Floor, City Hall
453 West 12th Avenue
Vancouver, BC V5Y 1V4
2. Fax your request to the City Clerk’s Office at 604.873.7419
3. Call the City Clerk’s Office at 604.873.7276
4. E-mail your request to mayorandcouncil@vancouver.ca
Requests to speak cannot be added to a meeting’s speakers list prior to the publication of the meeting agenda, which typically occurs one week in advance. Phone and email requests must be received the day prior for morning meetings and two hours prior for afternoon and evening meetings. Requests can be made in person up to ten minutes prior to the commencement of the meeting. If time permits, the meeting chairperson may also invite unregistered attendees to speak.
MAKE YOURSELF HEARD NOW WHEN IT COUNTS!!!
And to keep City Hall honest why not let us all know on Frances’s blog that “I told City Hall low to mid-rise only – NO TOWERS.”
74 scm // Oct 29, 2010 at 9:24 pm
great comments!
time for us to take action beyond our words!
no one has yet mentioned that the 26 storey tower will greatly shadow the streets and the proposed private (semi public) gardens below.
this is a poor design by a respectfully good design firm. I bet there are as many units of rental housing on the roof of the grovesnor project at cambie, 7th and 8th. A far more inspired solution to housing (rental) on a large block required because the mayor has view corridor of the city from his office. see roof plan on google maps and aerial on bing.
the truth is that the beautiful views that Vancouver has, are its downfall – what leads to the uninspired glass tower on a podium- to SELL the view.
it is interesting that rize alliance does not include the project on their website as of yet – but that their portfolio is of buildings (including quebec and broadway) that generally fit into the context and are of reasonable human scale (though maybe not the recent rolston).
the site has been on the boards for certainly 10 years – NBA before AOA….
really no rezoning should allow more than an increase of 1 FSR…or some formula could be put forward to adhere to. planning has set precedent for allowing individual sites to upzone to such high percentage increases – that how can they ever say no to anything.
there has been a fair amount of discussion above of appropriate massing – take a look at my favorite city, Barcelona – l’example with its unified 8 stories perimeter blocks with semi public safe courtyards and the blocks chamfered corners that can make public squares, is so dense Vancouver could only dream. note also how the architecture there is interesting without always yelling look at me (Gaudi perhaps the famous exception).
Or Amsterdam – with housing as a right! Here however, we are owned (thanks Roger Kemble for the link to George Carlin’s rant on the American Dream – see “Downtown starts to boom…” comment 2.) If housing was a right, and government didn’t just pay lip service to it – we may all be a lot happier
here is one RK may chuckle at.
http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/7429337/?ref=nf
75 Lewis N. Villegas // Oct 30, 2010 at 1:19 pm
“Pleasant Community Plan has not yet gone to Council for approval. It is scheduled for the Planning and Environment meeting at City Hall on November 18, 2010 at 2 pm.”
MPBCN
Timely information, thank you very much… “My Public Back Yard Cable Network”? …Whomever you may be.
Here’s the crux of it from MPBCN:
“We agreed that there could be more height but to a limit.”
Density & Height: That is the Question.
The canard is that density and height are not equal. Tall buildings—like in North Shore False Creek—can be shown to under-perform in terms of density, and in terms of providing bustle, and defensible space (i.e. safe neighbourhood streets).
Tall buildings, however, net a LOT of money to the developer and to the Authority Having Jurisdiction (i.e. our City Hall).
Yet, Density and Height are not the same thing.
We can do “high density” and build no higher than “3.5 storeys”. However, somewhere in the old-planning-paradigm these concrete facts were either lost, or as Dr. Frankentower might have it, “burried away”.
It bears mentioning that if you want to do “high density with human scale”—i.e. 3.5 storey height—the kind of urban platting that would be required is precisely the kind that we have here, within Vancouver City Limits. [Oh boy!].
Put that in your Martini and swirl it. Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, B.C., share one thing in common: both were platted to support the very kind of urbanism we are all now calling “sustainable” as we beat our breast and wonder about the evils of the carbon economy.
Of course, in the past century, monied interests have spread about so much public misinformation, and successfully backed so many popular political leaders, that it is hard to understand exactly how it all shakes down.
I hope that the plethora of posts here have helped to throw some light on the issue.
A tower in Mount Pleasant is a money play pure and simple. The interests of the community, and the future of our city, are not in that equation.
76 Roger Kemble // Oct 30, 2010 at 11:42 pm
@scm #74 . . .
On boy yes . . . chuckle, chuckle, chuckle . . . the korpocracy got hold of it . . .
Architecture used to be fun
http://theyorkshirelad.ca/8architecture/sixbuildings.html . . . amen . . .
77 motera // Nov 3, 2010 at 11:57 pm
Lewis N. Villegas
If you look in all the windows of the AIBC there are clerical workers. It is an completely open plan office. Your suggestion that young architects in the windows would ‘give back to the street’ and inference that clerical workers sitting next to the window do not, is an interesting value judgment. Says a lot about you and as a result you have lost credibility with me because you have demonstrated that your are only a drive-by observer of the city, with an inflated sense of your profession.
78 John Allison // Nov 4, 2010 at 2:39 pm
Interesting the Vancouver Sun had a short piece about this plan back in mid March. But at the City’s open houses for Mount Pleasant’s Community Plan in April there was no mention of a huge tower at Broadway and Kingsway anywhere to be found. Very mysterious that no one can find plans or sketches 6 months later.
http://www.vancouversun.com/search/Developer+pitches+tall+tower+East+Broadway+fire+site/2690948/story.html
79 mountpleasantneighbour // Nov 18, 2010 at 8:56 pm
I just got back to from the City Council meeting.
The Community Plan passed. Very interesting discussion, with some particularly eloquent reasoning about how they really did tell the community that vague references to increased density actually means 26 storey highrises and that the drawings in the Community Plan that show mid-rises actually were drawings of 26 storey highrises (although if that was the case, they would have been twice as tall!).
No density or height limit for “large sites”. It’s a free for all!
80 SeanR // Feb 8, 2011 at 11:33 am
I recently checked with the city and there will be a community consultation meeting later in February. Location and date are yet to be determined.
The primary problem with this development is the size and height. The majority of Mount Pleasant residents have no problem with development in the area if it aligns with the community feel of the area – low-rise developments of the kind recently and currently underway along Main Street. This massive development is completely out of place and against the Community Plan. It’s as simple as that. Density can increase without massive high-rise developments. Mount Pleasant already has significantly higher density than most areas in the city south of False Creek. How about rezoning more single family areas on the west-side and see how that goes down.
81 Michael B // Feb 28, 2011 at 10:30 pm
The long-awaited community meeting regarding the proposed development @ Kingsway and Broadway is finally happening.
Here is the info:
Sunday March 20th 2011. 12noon to 4:30pm at the Native Education College, 285 East 5th Avenue. Door open at 11:30 for viewing of the proposal.
RSVP to: Nancy Wormald 604.873.7388, nancy.wormald@vancouver.ca.
I’ve genuinely enjoyed the discourse regarding this project on this site, and sincerely hope that all those who are opposed to the scale of the development will attend the meeting and share their objections.
82 VOICE YOUR CONCERNS March 20th... // Mar 5, 2011 at 4:33 pm
I love this building, & the fact it was built 1912 (Jantzen) – so it’s Vcr. heritage, ‘protection’ or not! As i’m on their list, i got an email from Mt. Pleasant Community group yesterday about a public workshop re. Rize Alliance’s rezoning proposal – it’s on MARCH 20TH @ Native Education College, 285 East 5th Avenue (11:30 am – 4 pm) – RSVP nancy.wormald@vancouver.ca (604.873.7388) ASAP! Let’s show we care about preserving our city’s heritage!! You can go here to download and print/distribute the notice around: http://is.gd/anhqmQ
SEE YOU THERE! Sarah C.
83 Jay // Mar 18, 2011 at 8:28 pm
hmm…a community meeting and you’re only inviting those opposed to the project…
Leave a Comment